Journal of Management Studies 40:6 September 2003

0022-2380

Spirals of Silence: The Dynamic Effects of

Diversity on Organizational Voice*

Frances Bowen and Kate Blackmon

Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary; Said Business School, University of Oxford

 When will individuals speak up about organizational issues, and when
will they remain silent? We suggest that organizational voice will be significantly
influenced by individuals’ perceptions of the attitudes towards an issue within their
workgroup. In particular, individuals will be more likely to speak up when they
believe that their position is supported by others, and remain silent when they believe
that it is not. We explain this using the ‘spiral of silence’ proposed by Noelle-
Neumann (1974, 1985, 1991) and widely used in public opinion research, which
explains how majority opinions become dominant over time and minority opinions
weakened.
Spirals of silence within groups can restrict the open and honest discussion that
is essential to organizational improvement. Noelle-Neumann’s spiral of silence
emphasizes the horizontal pressures that the threat of isolation and corresponding
fear of isolation exert to keep people from being open and honest about their
opinions. We argue in this paper that the fear and threat of isolation are particularly
powerful for members of invisible minorities such as gay and lesbian employees. We
propose a second, vertical ‘spiral of silence’ may develop through processes at a more
micro level within the workgroup and organization. This second spiral begins with
the inability to fully express one’s personal identity within the workgroup because of
a negative climate of opinion towards a particular aspect of one’s identity. This may
be especially true for ‘invisible’ sources of diversity such as sexual orientation.
Revealing a potentially disruptive identity might impair social cohesion: concealing
it, however, can inhibit social exchange and task exchange and reduce self-efficacy,
leading to organizational silence. However, an alternate virtuous spiral can result in
which individuals will feel empowered to express organizational voice.

INTRODUCTION
Contributions from employees are essential to empowerment and more open lines
of communication (e.g., Lawler, 1992; Pfeffer, 1994; Spreitzer, 1995), and for

Address for reprints: Frances Bowen, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, 2500
University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 (Frances.bowen@haskayne.ucalgary.ca).

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
1394 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
employees to be a source of change, creativity, and innovation (Frohman, 1997).
Organizational voice describes the voluntary expression of people’s views to influence
organizational actions (Banerjee and Somanathan, 2001; Hirschman, 1970).
Whilst organizational voice can be a powerful source of organizational change,
voice is voluntary and employees are often reluctant to speak out. Organizational
members must therefore choose whether to speak freely and honestly when they
express ideas and opinions on organizational issues. The opposite of voice – orga-
nizational silence – results when people cannot contribute freely to organizational
discourse. As Morrison and Milliken (2000, p. 706) point out, ‘many organizations
are caught in an apparent paradox in which most employees know the truth about
certain issues and problems within the organization yet dare not speak that truth
to their superiors.’
When will people choose organizational voice and when will they choose orga-
nizational silence? As shown in this special issue of the Journal of Management Studies,
interest in voice and silence is on the increase. Further, as an organizational con-
struct, voice is becoming more refined. Morrison and Milliken (2000) have
reviewed the collective dimension of organizational voice and silence at the orga-
nizational level, while other authors, such as Miceli and Near (1992), Ashford et
al. (1998), and Zhou and George (2001), have identified individual attributes asso-
ciated with voice and silence.
In this paper, we use the ‘spiral of silence’ theory developed by Noelle-Neumann
(1974, 1985, 1991) to explain the self-reinforcing collective dynamics of silence
and voice in workgroups. Research on selling issues to top management suggests
that employees will engage in voice when they believe that it will be effective,
relatively low-risk, and where top management is perceived as more supportive
and open (Dutton and Ashford, 1993; Dutton et al., 2001). The spiral of silence
theory, originally developed in the field of public opinion, argues that people scan
their environment to determine the dominant opinion, and express the majority
opinion more readily than a minority one. We apply this theory in the organiza-
tional context, arguing that employees will not use voice unless they are likely to
have support from their co-workers. If they are not confident of support from their
peers, or think that resistance to voice is likely, they will choose silence or dishon-
est responses. Thus, we propose that the choice between voice and silence is largely
determined by the ‘climate of opinion’ in one’s workgroup. This approach to com-
munication within workgroups emphasizes the roles played by the dominant
opinion on an issue, as well as social cohesion, trust and attachment towards the
workgroup.
Although many factors may affect organizational voice and silence, in this paper
we focus on the role of diversity in the dynamics of organizational voice and
silence. We augment Noelle-Neumann’s collective, horizontal, spiral of silence
with an individual, vertical spiral of silence. Managing an increasingly diverse
workplace is a key issue for managers and organizations (e.g., Milliken and Martins,
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
 Spirals of Silence 1395
1996; Tsui et al., 1992). Whilst diversity’s effects on group processes constitute a
vast field of study, within workgroups, we focus on research about the effect of
diversity on workgroup communications and on organizational performance. An
individual whose demographic attributes, social or personal identity differ from
the group norm may not feel able to talk about important aspects of their per-
sonal identity. This may initiate an individual spiral of silence, where they feel
inhibited in making meaningful contributions to the group and in turn the orga-
nization. Small personal silences are thus reinforced and subsequently escalate to
inhibit voice on wider organizational issues. In this paper, we will focus specifically
on how individuals’ choices about disclosing ‘invisible’ personal identities may
spiral outwards to affect organizational voice and silence. People who differ in
‘invisible’ ways such as sexual orientation must choose whether to speak out or
remain silent about their difference. Thus, in this second spiral of silence, employ-
ees who initially remain silent about their personal identities may fail to exercise
organizational voice even if they have valuable contributions that they could
make. We argue that managing ‘invisible diversity’ may be just as crucial as ‘visible
diversity’ such as sex or ethnicity for workgroup communication and hence orga-
nizational performance, but provides additional challenges since individuals may
chose to conceal or evade rather than speak up about their difference (Clair et al.,
2002).
In this paper, we apply the spiral of silence theory together with research on
the effects of diversity on workgroup communications to derive some preliminary
propositions about invisible difference might affect organizational silence and
voice. We focus on sexual orientation, a form of ‘invisible’ diversity, to identify an
agenda for empirical research on silence and diversity. We conclude by describing
an agenda for empirical research and the practical implications of the spiral of
silence framework.

THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE

When will people choose organizational voice and when silence? Whether an indi-
vidual chooses to speak out has been shown to be significantly influenced by their
own perception of the dominant opinion about the issue. The ‘spiral of silence’
theory, developed by Noelle-Neumann (1975, 1985, 1991) in the context of public
opinion research, explains how people decide whether to report their true
opinions. This ‘spiral of silence’ links the willingness to express personal opinion
to external forces such as the media and interpersonal opinions. It has been widely
used in media and communications studies to describe the dynamics of silence on
controversial issues such as genetically-modified foods.
Figure 1 shows the basic workings of the spiral of silence. It starts with the
proposition that organizations are composed of heterogeneous individuals who
have different prior beliefs about the world (e.g., Banerjee and Somanathan, 2001).
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
1396 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon

Personal Willingness to
opinion express
opinion

Perception of Assessment
dominant of likely future
opinion opinion

Media Interpersonal
opinions

Figure 1. The spiral of silence (based on Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1985, 1991)

People’s willingness to express their opinions is influenced not only by their own
personal opinions, but also by their external environment, particularly what they
perceive as the prevailing ‘climate of opinion’. When they are not sure that they
agree with the majority, people are reluctant to express their opinions. They use
their social environments, including public opinion and the judgements of others,
as a frame of reference in interpreting new information and to assess public
opinion. For example, people use opinion polls on probable voter turnout and elec-
tion outcomes in deciding for whom to vote (Scheufele and Moy, 2000). This can
lead to misleading results, for example when in pre-election polls, people report
support for the candidate that they think public opinion supports, rather than their
own choice.
The dominant public opinion exerts control over individuals through the threat
of isolation for deviance. To avoid social isolation, people try to find out both
what the majority opinion is and whether various opinions are increasing or
decreasing in popularity (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). When people perceive that
they share the dominant opinion they will speak out, strengthening this position,
whilst those who perceive that they hold the minority opinion will become more
silent, diminishing their position (Gonzenbach et al., 1999, p. 284). Over time, this
leads to one opinion becoming predominant at the societal level (Schedfele et al.,
2001).
Noelle-Neumann (1991) argued that for spiralling to occur people must perceive
a threat of isolation and they must fear isolation. This is more likely when issues
have a moral or value-laden component, when opinions or attitudes are changing
over time, and when the media take an identifiable position in the conflict,
for instance the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ ban on homosexuals in the US military
(Gonzenbach et al., 1999). This leads to a dynamic and self-reinforcing process,
as shown in Figure 2, since:

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

 Spirals of Silence 1397

Time

Minority position Majority position

getting weaker getting stronger

Unwillingness to Perceived strength

express minority of majority opinion
opinion

Figure 2. The horizontal spiral of silence

Individuals tend to publicly express their opinions and attitudes when they per-
ceive their view to be dominant or on the rise. In contrast, when people sense
their view is in the minority or on the decline, they become cautious and silent.
(Scheufele and Moy, 1999)

Diversity and the Spiral of Silence

Although the spiral of silence was developed through public opinion research at
the societal level, we apply it in the context of organizational silence to identify
factors that will affect whether people will openly and honestly express their opin-
ions about organizational issues. In this context, the spiral of silence helps explain
how expected support from peers affects speaking out at work: individuals engage
less in voice when they are unsure whether they will receive support (Morrison and
Milliken, 2000). In particular, the spiral of silence highlights the degree to which
people’s willingness to publicly express their opinions is affected by the local orga-
nizational ‘climate of opinion’ about particular issues, and thus emphasizes the
horizontal influences on choices between silence and voice.
The spiral of silence will be especially influential when the potential for social
isolation exists within a workgroup. This potential may be created when a work-
group is composed of heterogeneous rather than homogenous individuals, and
some members are perceived as members of the ‘ingroup’ and others as members
of the ‘outgroup’. Subgroups may form based on similarity, especially when dif-
ferences between individuals on one or more demographic attributes become

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

1398 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
salient. Thus, differences in demographic attributes – diversity – can create the
potential for group faultlines (Lau and Murnighan, 1998). This is particularly likely
to happen when group members become aware that one or more members possess
‘deviant’ attributes, since the attributes of ingroup members are usually likely to
go unnoticed (e.g., Bell and Nkomo, 2001; Nkomo, 1992).
These subdivisions within groups affect sensemaking, group and subgroup
dynamics, and political processes. When faultlines emerge within groups, oppor-
tunities and incentives for voice relating to collective and organizational goals (as
opposed to personal goals) will be diminished. Research and theory suggest that
homogenous groups are more cohesive than heterogeneous groups. To work effec-
tively towards collective goals, an individual must work effectively with other group
members. Many studies suggest that people prefer to work with others who they
perceive as similar to themselves on demographic and other measures of diversity.
Several social psychology theories explain why people prefer to associate with those
whom they categorise as similar, including social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel and
Turner, 1986), status construction theory (e.g., Ridgeway, 1982, 1991), expectation
states theory (e.g., Berger et al., 1985), and social attribution theory (e.g.,
Hewstone et al., 1982).
Social identity theory explains how individuals routinely classify themselves and
others based on characteristics such as age, gender, or race/ethnicity. According
to this theory, each member of a work group possesses both a social identity based
on his or her social category memberships, and a personal identity based on his
or her personal characteristics (e.g., Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel
and Turner, 1986). Individuals classify others as ingroup or outgroup members
based on these characteristics. Individuals strongly prefer groups of people in
similar social categories (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), choosing to interact more often
with members of their own social group (Stephan, 1978), and developing expec-
tations for their and others’ roles in the group based on these categories.
Demographically homogeneous groups are more likely to be socially integrated
and to experience higher satisfaction and lower turnover than heterogeneous
groups (O’Reilly et al., 1989). However, whilst similarity encourages open and free
communication, people who are similar often know similar things and have similar
opinions. Therefore, dissimilarity may inhibit communication, but people with
diverse backgrounds and personal attributes know different things and have dif-
ferent opinions that can provide additional contributions. These multiple and
divergent points of view contribute to effective organizational decision-making
(e.g., Argyris and Schon, 1978; Dutton and Ashford, 1993; Floyd and Wooldridge,
1994; Milliken and Martins, 1996; Nemeth, 1997). Consequently, diverse work-
forces have been claimed to generate higher-quality solutions than less diverse
groups (e.g., Hoffman and Maier, 1961; McLeod and Lobel, 1992; Watson et al.,
1993; Wiersema and Bantel, 1992), especially when tasks require creativity and
judgement (e.g., Ancona and Caldwell, 1992b; Frohman, 1997; Jackson, 1991).
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
 Spirals of Silence 1399
Even so, categorization and stereotyping of some individuals may prevent
diverse groups from being effective. Diverse groups often fail because some
members are marginalized based on their demographic attributes (Hood and
Koberg, 1994; Kanter, 1977; Tsui and O’Reilly, 1989), including women and
people of colour (e.g., Blalock, 1957; Elsass and Graves, 1997; Gutek, 1985; Ibarra,
1992, 1993; Konrad et al., 1992). As Nkomo (1992, pp. 488–9) points out, it took
a child – rather than the courtiers, tailors, or emperor himself – to point out that
the emperor has no clothes. However, she goes on to say that:

Even as these other voices point to the omissions and errors and the need for
inclusiveness, the dominant group refuses to hear the message and continues
with the procession. The real issue for the others is getting truly heard, rather
than simply ‘added on’. (Nkomo, 1992, pp. 488–9)

Where individuals who differ from the majority fear this marginalization, they may
avoid speaking up on a wide range of organizational issues. Given the threat and
fear of isolation experienced by some individuals, the conditions for the escalation
of organizational silence in Noelle-Neumann’s spiral may be in place.

Pressures for Repression of Challenging Identities

To maintain social cohesion, the extent to which group members are attracted to
each other, feel satisfied with each other, and socialize with each other (Katz and
Kahn, 1978), members of outgroups often feel pressured to assimilate into the
dominant culture (Cox, 1993). They may hide aspects of their identity that do not
conform with the majority, or change aspects of their behaviour to make others
more comfortable (Essed, 1991; Pettigrew and Martin, 1987). This minimizes the
chances of such division. Those in power have little motivation to adjust their
behaviour to accommodate other groups, whilst minority group members must
usually assimilate to their norms, usually those set by European-American het-
erosexual males (e.g., Ely, 1995). For instance, a black woman might be advised
not to wear her hair in an ethnic hairstyle, or a gay man may be told not to bring
his (male) partner to a company social event (Meyerson, 2001). However, assimi-
lation may result in stress and other negative effects for the individual, and not
necessarily be effective.
Whilst social identity theory explains why people prefer similar others, and
the concept of ingroups and outgroups is useful, it does not explain how such
characteristics determine the member’s value within the group and the group’s
expectations for their performance. Status can be thought of as ‘a hierarchical
relationship among individuals that is enacted through differences in deference
and influence’ (Ridgeway and Erickson, 2000, p. 580). Status construction theory
helps explain why certain characteristics are valued or not valued, and how those
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
1400 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
beliefs are established, whether these characteristics are real or constructed or even
made-up (Ridgeway, 1991; Ridgeway and Balkwell, 1997; Ridgeway and Erick-
son, 2000). Status beliefs are widely-shared beliefs that people who belong to one
social group – based on characteristics such as occupations, racial/ethnic groups,
or gender (Weber, 1968) – are more esteemed and competent than those in other
groups (e.g., Webster and Foschi, 1988). Interactions between individuals result in
shared status beliefs that create powerful local realities for individuals, and are
communicated to both minority group members and observers (Ridgeway and
Erickson, 2000).
Status beliefs help explain how diversity influences expectations about capabil-
ities and stereotyping (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Brewer, 1995; Brewer and Miller,
1984; Tsui and O’Reilly, 1989; Wharton, 1992). Negative expectations for lower-
status group members will lead to them being assigned unimportant tasks or their
contributions being dismissed (Cianni and Romberger, 1995). If these expectations
are internalised by the group member, his or her behaviour will reflect these expec-
tations (Deaux and Major, 1987). Thus, in a hostile climate with respect to a par-
ticular status characteristic, individuals can experience considerable repression of
their personal identity. Such repression can be internalized in an individual self-
censoring spiral of silence.

INVISIBLE DIVERSITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL VOICE

Morrison and Milliken (2000, p. 714) identify the precursors of a ‘climate of
silence’ as the belief that speaking up will be ineffective and dangerous for the
individual who speaks up. Silence is particularly relevant to ‘invisible’ forms of
diversity, where the individual can often opt to conceal or reveal this form of dif-
ference, at least under some circumstances:

In the course of everyday interactions, people regularly face choices . . . to

remain silent or to speak up, to ignore an offensive comment or to challenge it,
to comply with stereotypical expectations or challenge them, to ‘pass’ as an
insider or stand as an outsider. (Meyerson, 2001, p. 154)

We argue that the threat of isolation will be particularly powerful for members of
an ‘invisible’ minority. ‘Invisible’ diversity has been less researched in the man-
agement area than visible forms such as gender or race/ethnicity (Clair et al.,
2002). In this paper, we focus on gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees, whose sexual
orientation we characterize as ‘invisible’ because sexual orientation is not neces-
sarily observable compared with other demographic characteristics such as gender,
age, and race/ethnicity that are usually observable and readily detectable
(Milliken and Martins, 1996; Welch, 1996).

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

 Spirals of Silence 1401
Sexual orientation is especially relevant in the context of voice and silence
because it meets the conditions highlighted by Noelle-Neumann, including the
threat and fear of isolation, and high visibility in the media. Further, sexual ori-
entation as a characteristic is generally not job-related, compared with character-
istics such as organizational tenure, education level or professional association
memberships. Further, sexual orientation is especially interesting because it is rich
in metaphors for silence and voice. These include terms such as ‘coming out’,
‘outing’, ‘in the closet’, and code words and double talk that can be used to clue
in those ‘in the know’ and exclude others:

Central to most closeted lives is a conspiracy of silence, a tacit contract between

oppressor and oppressed never to name or manifest the secret state of being
gay. (Dickemann, 1997, p. 31)

Because sexual orientation is essentially invisible until made visible, gay, lesbian,
and bisexual (GLB) individuals must decide whether to disclose their sexual ori-
entation at work (Day and Schoenrade, 1997), a choice that others may not have
the option to make (Clair et al., 2002). Like members of other non-dominant
groups, they cannot always predict whether they will be accepted by fellow group
members, and may find it difficult to predict the reactions of colleagues, managers,
and other organizational members (Mintz and Rothblum, 1997). Some GLB
employees will always maintain ‘invisibility’ and others will always maintain ‘visi-
bility’; however, most GLB employees will carefully assess the prevailing organi-
zational climate before disclosing this potentially risky or even dangerous aspect
of personal identity. In such conditions, they may choose not to disclose their
sexual orientation until they have gauged whether the local climate of opinion is
likely to be supportive or not.
When GLB members are still invisible, they can sample workgroup opinion as
though they were heterosexual, since group members often behave in the presence
of ‘invisible’ outgroup members in ways that they would not if they were visible.
They can use this information to predict whether co-workers will be supportive,
hostile, or neutral if they ‘come out’. For example, a gay prison service officer
reported that:

Because he is straight-acting, he doubts that his colleagues knew he was gay

before he was outed. But the price of doing a job that he loves was staying quiet
when other officers made homophobic remarks. ‘They’d be using derogatory
terms – poof and queer – maybe for something they’d see on TV last night;
and I’d be sat there, gritting my teeth and wanting to say something’.
(Cunningham, 2002, p. S2)

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

1402 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND WORKGROUP PROCESSES
The Decision to Disclose Sexual Orientation
Humphrey (1999, p. 138) identifies three reasons that people come out at work:
(1) at the personal level, honesty and integrity; (2) at the professional level, open
relationships with colleagues; and (3) at the political layer, educating colleagues
about lesbian and gay existence (cf. Creed and Scully, 2000). As we will argue
below, ‘coming out’ as gay or lesbian can have positive effects for the individual
through reducing the effects of role ambiguity, role conflict, and job stress associ-
ated with secrecy. Openness about one’s sexual orientation has been widely
associated with improved effectiveness (e.g., Day and Schoenrade, 1997; Ellis and
Riggle, 1996; Friskopp and Silverstein, 1995; Meyerson, 2001). Employees who
have disclosed their true identities are more likely to be integrated successfully with
the rest of their workgroup (Creed and Scully, 2000; Day and Schoenrade, 1997).
People who voluntarily ‘out’ themselves may even be admired for their honesty
even though disclosure may lead to stigma or loss of status.
Given these effects, it is probably not surprising that ‘out’ employees are con-
sidered better off than ‘closeted’ employees, despite the risks. Employees who can
be honest about their social identity will spend less time and energy managing
‘invisibility’ and thus can contribute more fully to the workplace (Creed and Scully,
2000, p. 392). For the organization, the time and effort that employees spend con-
structing and defending a false identity is time and effort that is not spent on
working toward collective goals. Being ‘out’ to colleagues can lead to the reduc-
tion of ignorance and prejudice in the workplace (Humphrey, 1999), through the
opportunities to use conversations as educative encounters (Creed and Scully,
2000).
However, individuals may be reluctant to disclose their sexual orientation
because it can trigger potentially judgmental and divisive reactions (Wharton,
1992). Being identified as a member of an outgroup may lead to social isolation
and hostility (O’Farrell and Harlan, 1982). These may range from overt acts of
discrimination to more covert ones such as the ‘aversive racism’ identified by
Gaertner and Doviodio (1986). These are insidious and subtle acts of discrimina-
tion that combine overt acceptance and covert rejection (Essed, 1991; Pettigrew
and Martin, 1987). Gay men and lesbians may be marginalized based on expec-
tations about their competence and comparable status (Webster and Hysom,
1998). Job discrimination against ‘out’ gay and lesbian workers has been widely
documented (e.g., Croteau and Von Destinon, 1994; Crow et al., 1995; Friskopp
and Silverstein, 1995; Shapiro et al., 1993; Welch, 1996), including lower pay
(Badgett, 1995; Ellis and Riggle, 1996; Wiethoff, 2000). Taylor and Raeburn
(1995) found that sociologists who were out at work faced significant personal and
institutional discrimination. This included discrimination in hiring, bias in tenure
and promotion, exclusion from social and professional networks, devaluation of
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
 Spirals of Silence 1403
their scholarly work on gay and lesbian topics, and even harassment, intimidation
and violence from students, colleagues and anonymous sources.
Faced with potential discrimination, many GLB individuals do not disclose their
identity and routinely ‘pass’ as heterosexual (cf. Chrobot-Mason and Button,
1999). Such passing is facilitated through ‘institutional heterosexuality’, which
assumes all organizational members are heterosexual unless there is evidence to
the contrary. Gay men and lesbians who do not signal their sexual orientation are
often thought to be heterosexual. Such ‘evading’ strategies, where sexuality is not
discussed but is assumed (Clair et al., 2002), are common in some climates:

In terms of lesbian identity, the university culture was one of silence, and that
was the model I followed. I found it particularly awkward not to do so because
everyone at work knew me as straight and to change this perception would take
what I thought to be a dramatic act. An announcement or something: ‘Excuse
me but . . .’ (Mintz and Rothblum, 1997, p. 7)

Since individuals may feel both the threat and fear of rejection by their workgroup
if they decide to come out, some employees will chose to come out at work, while
others prefer to pass or evade. Thus we argue, based on Noelle-Neumann’s spiral
of silence (see Figure 1), that a key part of this decision for individuals is their per-
ception of the prevailing climate of opinion among their peers. This leads to our
first proposition:

Proposition 1: The more the climate of opinion within a workgroup is perceived

as supportive of different sexual orientations, the less likely GLB individuals are
to be silent about their sexual orientation as part of their personal identity.

The Effects of Disclosing Personal Identity on Workplace

Communication
Concealing such an integral part of one’s personal identity as sexual identity can
have harmful personal and work-related effects. Silence about one’s true personal
identity comes at a high cost:

Had I been a better utilitarian, I would have weighed the costs as well as the
benefits of being ‘in the closet’; as it was, I had not even considered the toll
which was exacted by my self-imposed ‘privacy’. How many other gay men, I
wondered, went to work each day representing themselves as something
they were not . . . Were there not likely to be organizational implications for
such an intolerant work environment – if not relating to performance, at least
with respect to commitment, and thereby absenteeism and turnover? (Dunn,
1994)
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
1404 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
Nondisclosure was found by Day and Schoenrade (1997, p. 150) to be associated
with lower organizational commitment, because workers do not communicate
their true personal and social identities; lower job satisfaction, because of inhib-
ited natural social interactions; role ambiguity, through less access to information
about the work role through casual conversations; role conflict, through giving up
a part of self-identify; and job stress, through the expenditure of emotional energy
in keeping orientation secret. For example, one respondent quoted in Friskopp and
Silverstein (1995, p. 312) says that:

If you’re closeted at work, people don’t get to know you, so you become alien-
ated from your peer group, and you don’t really like your experience there. In
the closet, you get paranoid. You lose confidence, and it’s much more difficult
to succeed.

We illustrate the mechanisms by which non-disclosure of personal identity affects

workplace communications in Figure 3. We propose a ‘vertical’ spiral of silence,
where silences on personal identity escalate over time to a wider silence on other
issues. This second spiral can occur within the context of the horizontal spiral of
silence proposed by Noelle-Neumann. However, it differs in an important respect.
While Noelle-Neumann’s horizontal spiral addresses the scope of silence across a

‘I cannot speak
credibly about Repression of organizational voice
important issues’

‘I cannot fully Fewer casual Lower task Role

engage in work’ conversations exchange ambiguity

‘I cannot share Inhibited Lower social Lower job

my life with natural social exchange satisfaction
coworkers’ interactions

‘I am not free Repressing Identity Lower

to talk about aspects of conflict organizational
who I am’ personal identity commitment

Expending Job stress

emotional energy
on secrecy

Figure 3. The vertical spiral of silence

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

 Spirals of Silence 1405
group of individuals who each evaluate the climate of opinion, the vertical spiral
represents escalating individual self-censorship on increasingly important organi-
zational issues. The vertical spiral illustrates the dynamic effects of silence on a
controversial invisible diversity characteristic on group communication.

The Effects of Disclosure on Social Exchange

How much and how honestly one chooses to reveal one’s true identity is critically
important for workgroup communications. Elsass and Graves (1997, p. 953)
describe social exchange as the extent to which an individual offers social support
to others and the extent to which it is reciprocated. Sharing information about
personal lives is part of establishing trust and increasing integration between
workers. Such social exchange increasingly includes aspects of people’s extra-work
lives that were once considered out of bounds: although relationships between co-
workers were traditionally formal and distant (yet polite and friendly), today they
are much more casual (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). For instance, a gay
fire-fighter reported that:

In the station, they like to take care of you. They like to know what you get up
to on your days off; where you go on holiday. At a social function, they like to
see you there with a partner. And if you’re gay, it’s not that easy. You just can’t
bring along a boyfriend, especially if you’re not out. (Cunningham, 2002, p. S3)

When group members are able to express their personal identity freely rather than
trying to manage disclosure, they will be able to engage in a higher level of social
exchange. At the group level, individuals frequently engage in face-to-face inter-
actions (Pelled, 1996). Communications between individuals working together
daily are the small events that make up much of the information sharing and deci-
sion making at work (Larkey, 1996, p. 466). Intra-group communication and inte-
gration is especially important where individuals work together on a problem or
set of problems, and the problem belongs to the whole group (Webster and Hysom,
1998). Further, although people are usually more likely to trust other members of
their own social group (Williams, 2001), familiarity and continued interaction with
someone in their work-related roles can lead to decategorization of people with
stigmatized aspects of personal identity.
However, when sharing information about one’s personal life might lead to
unwanted disclosure of one’s sexual identity, it becomes problematic and individ-
uals will usually try to minimize social exchange in order to maintain their iden-
tity as heterosexual or even asexual.

But at that time, I was working in a paediatrics clinic with very conservative co-
workers. I had heard antigay comments jokes and comments from secretaries,
lab techs, social workers, psychologists, and physicians in this setting over the
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
1406 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
years. . . . It did not feel safe to come out at work, so I led a double life for about
three years. I gradually stopped any interaction with co-workers, worked
through lunch breaks, and made excuses for the occasional after work social
gatherings. (Eliason, 1997, p. 43)

Remaining silent about sexual orientation also creates communications problems

due to issues of face management (Goffman, 1967), in particular, constant worries
whether one is inadvertently disclosing information or if others are covertly imply-
ing knowledge in their communications.

Engaging in the usual mundane Monday-morning chatter about something as

simple as what you did over the weekend can be a landmine of explosive secrets
for closeted gays and lesbians. Will they find out the same-gender ‘friend’ I went
to the movies with on Friday is more than a friend? Will they suspect that my
housemate is really my partner of ten years? If they do, will it matter? Will I
lose my job? (Bennett-Alexander, 1997, p. 16)

As well as minimizing social exchange, in trying to maintain an ‘invisible’ identity

people may spend considerable energy counterfeiting such exchanges (Clair et al.,
2002), either denying their essential self or ‘passing’, presenting oneself as having
a different social identity than the one privately held (e.g., Bell and Nkomo, 2001).
In the words of one gay man, ‘I spent over a year telling stories about the girl-
friend I never had. I was constantly scared I would be outed’ (Welch, 1996, p. 26).
Even when individuals can mask some stigmatized aspect of their identity
(Goffman, 1963), they are faced with the tension caused by selectivity: being secret
with some classes of people, such as predictably hostile people, and needing sys-
tematically to reveal themselves to other classes of people (Creed and Scully, 2000,
p. 397). Paradoxically, then, making an invisible identity visible may be more ben-
eficial for social exchange than maintaining invisibility, since less effort must be
spent on monitoring oneself and so on. Thus, people who have ‘come out’ to their
workgroup colleagues will be freer to engage in casual conversations with col-
leagues and to exchange more personal information than those who have not,
leading to increased social cohesion and trust.

Proposition 2: Given a supportive climate of opinion, individuals who disclose

their sexual orientations are likely to have higher levels of social communica-
tion and exchange with members of their workgroups.

The Effects of Disclosure on Instrumental Exchange

People engage in social exchange in organizations not only for its own sake, but
also because it facilitates their getting work done (e.g., Ibarra, 1993). Group
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
 Spirals of Silence 1407
members express agreement or exchange information about the task at hand in
order to ‘define goals, develop workable plans, and prioritize work’ (Ancona and
Caldwell, 1992b, p. 328). Elsass and Graves (1997, p. 953) defined instrumental
exchange as the task-related interchange between the individual and the group. It
includes both the individual’s willingness to share information with the group and
the extent to which the group shares information with the individual and solicits
his or her contributions through the social exchange described above.
Because social exchange between team members establishes competence and
trust, it reinforces instrumental exchange. Thus, the improved quality of social
exchange resulting from outing oneself and not maintaining an ‘invisible’ identity
will improve the quality of instrumental exchange.
As well as internal task-related exchange, employees also need to be integrated
into wider organizational and professional networks in order to be effective.
Members who have access to external networks of contacts with different or com-
plementary information or competencies are more valuable. This access can be
critical to the success of activities such as new product teams (e.g., Ancona and
Caldwell, 1992a).
Diversity is associated with both access to external networks and exclusion from
those networks (Elsass and Graves, 1997). ‘Closeted’ individuals often find them-
selves isolated from both heterosexual and homosexual colleagues, whilst ‘out’ ones
gain access to formal networks such as corporate employee interest groups and
informal social networks that cut across functional areas, business divisions, and
hierarchical levels (Friskopp and Silverstein, 1995; Meyerson, 2001). Such net-
works can provide not only access to resources and information, but also provide
valuable social support.
Because social exchange is essential to task exchange, and therefore to job effec-
tiveness, this leads to our third proposition:

Proposition 3: Given a supportive climate of opinion, individuals who disclose

their sexual orientations are likely to have higher levels of task communication
and instrumental exchange with members of their workgroups.

On the other hand, when social exchange is low, instrumental exchange may be
low, resulting in a lower level of communication and perceived efficacy. This may
lead to the vicious cycle suggested by Elsass and Graves (1997, p. 951):

If group members dismiss the focal individual’s attempts to contribute to the

task, the individual may limit his or her subsequent contributions, thereby con-
firming members’ initial negative expectations.

Homophily (the preference for similar others) tends to exclude members of out-
groups from opportunities (Pettigrew and Martin, 1987; Thomas and Alderfer,
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
1408 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
1989), including the informal networks that provide information and political
contacts (Connelly, 1994; Cox, 1993; Ibarra, 1993; Pettigrew and Martin, 1987).
Therefore, when GLB employees are less integrated with other members, they may
not learn critical information relevant to their work (Day and Schoenrade, 1997),
and miss out on information about opportunities such as promotions and jobs
(Meyerson, 2001; Taylor and Raeburn, 1995). Even when this exclusion is not
intentional, it may result from unconscious avoidance (Gaertner and Dovidio,
1986). Further, even when instrumental exchange is maintained between members
of the ingroup and outgroup, social exchange and support may be limited and
therefore the person is less effective. Finally, if people keep their personal
identity invisible, there are fewer chances to be identified and invited to join
external networks, whilst a visible identity may make an individual distinctive
and therefore more likely to be noticed by members of an external network who
use that as the basis for selection (Mehra et al., 1998). Thus, ‘coming out’ may
improve one’s effectiveness at one’s job, and thus the esteem of fellow workgroup
members.

The Effects of Disclosure on Organizational Voice

Exercising organizational voice is discretionary, requires employees to go beyond
their normal responsibilities and can be classified as a type of organizational cit-
izenship behaviour (Smith et al., 1983). Employees who are more attached to their
workgroup and organization are more likely to engage in such behaviours (e.g.,
Chattopadhyay, 1999).
In supportive climates of opinion, GLB employees are free to disclose their
sexual orientation as a routine part of their personal identity, whether fellow work-
group members perceive it as positive or not. This increases the degree of social
cohesion through higher levels of trust in and attraction to fellow work-group
members. Thus, the revelation of a potentially disruptive social identity does not
necessarily diminish the level of social and task-related exchange. Through com-
munications with other workgroup members, the individual will be more aware of
the dominant opinion towards a particular organizational issue and be able to
gauge whether there is support for engaging with the issue. Even if they are dis-
agreeing with the dominant opinion, they may be supported by their workgroup
members due to social cohesion, trust, and attraction. Thus, individuals who have
revealed their personal identity in a supportive environment are more likely to
engage in organizational voice.
This leads to our fourth proposition:

Proposition 4: Given a supportive climate of opinion, individuals who disclose

their sexual orientations are likely to exercise higher levels of organizational
voice.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
 Spirals of Silence 1409
However, in workgroups where individuals have not been able to reveal their sexual
orientation, several different factors may contribute to a higher likelihood of orga-
nizational silence. First, the individual might not feel enough cohesion with or
attachment to their workgroup or organization to become involved in organiza-
tional issues because of the negative job-related effects found by Day and Schoen-
rade (1997). Second, they may perceive organizational voice as too risky because
it will lead to increased scrutiny of the speaker, which may lead to revelation of
the concealed identity. Third, because concealment may affect the level of social
and task exchange, the individual may not have access to enough information to
gauge the workgroup attitude towards an issue, and may feel unsafe or unsup-
ported in expressing a view. Thus, one or more of these factors will favour orga-
nizational silence over voice.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This paper has examined how the climate of opinion within the workgroup affects
whether individuals in diverse workgroups choose organizational voice or silence.
We suggested that people are affected by their perception of their workgroup’s
attitude towards whether organizational voice or silence is desirable. We intro-
duced Noelle-Neumann’s (1974, 1985, 1991) spiral of silence to explain how the
threat of and the fear of isolation from one’s group can lead to organizational
silence when an individual does not feel supported in themselves openly and
honestly.
We then focused on how isolation can be particularly powerful in silencing
members of ‘invisible minorities’, when someone can choose whether to reveal an
aspect of one’s personal identity that is potentially disruptive to their relationship
with others in their workgroup. In the case of sexual orientation, we suggested that
gay, lesbian and bisexual employees must choose whether and to whom they should
‘out’ themselves. Whilst acknowledging one’s sexual orientation can lead to stigma
and discrimination, concealing it can disrupt social and task exchange with one’s
workgroup when people cannot share their personal lives and identities with
co-workers.

Contributions
We began this paper by introducing the spiral of silence. We then considered how
individual differences within workgroups might interact with this general spiral of
silence. In particular, where workgroups are heterogeneous, individual sources of
difference can create the potential for valuable contributions but also disrupt work-
group cohesion and communication. We argue in this paper that the effects of
diversity on communications between the focal individual and other individuals in
the workgroup, between the focal individual and external networks, and among
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
1410 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
the group as a whole, have the potential to either enable voice or silence of
members of minorities. These individuals’ contributions are potentially most valu-
able, as they are drawn from outside mainstream experience.
We next considered sexual orientation as a source of ‘invisible’ difference, which
workgroup members can choose to reveal and risk social isolation or other nega-
tive effects, or choose to conceal or evade. We then considered the effects of sexual
orientation on the decision to reveal challenging and risky aspects of one’s per-
sonal identity, as the potential seed for a second spiral of silence. Disclosure has
important implications for communications, particularly social exchange, task
communication and instrumental exchange, and ultimately on organizational
voice. Unlike gender and race, which are generally – although not always – observ-
able, sexual orientation is ‘invisible’. The presence of a gay man or lesbian within
a workgroup may be invisible unless that person chooses to disclose his or her
orientation. Thus, sexual orientation offers additional dimensions of diversity to
explore.
Additionally, previous studies have tended to focus on a single aspect of sexual
orientation – concealment, disclosure and discovery of sexual orientation (e.g.,
Clair et al., 2002; Hall, 1989) – rather than their broader implications in the orga-
nizational context that we consider here. Sexual orientation is an issue of growing
importance for organizations, and holds significant moral and status implications.
Besides contributing to the research on sexual orientation within organizations,
sexual orientation has become an important source of employee and customer
diversity, as more people self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. As a result, orga-
nizations are beginning to address sexual orientation issues. By 2001, 294 Fortune
500 companies included sexual orientation in their equal opportunities policies,
up from 255 in 2000 (Human Rights Campaign, 2001). Along with this, the degree
of legal protection accorded to sexual orientation in the workplace is increasing,
both in scattered locations in the United States (Human Rights Campaign, 2001),
and in Europe under new European Union (EU) law. Further, sexual orientation
may serve as a bellwether for other forms of diversity. For example, a recent study
of high-tech metropolitan areas by Florida and Gates (2001) found that attitudes
towards GLB issues act as an indicator of a progressive and diverse environment
for all workers, including women and people of colour.
In the broader sense, this research may contribute to the literature on organi-
zational sexuality (e.g., Hearn et al., 1989).[1] Humphrey (1999) argues that les-
bians and gay men have become the carriers of organizational sexuality, and thus
their experience can thus be used to reflect the meaning of heterosexuality back
to organizations and their members. Heterosexual identity is omnipresent within
organizations yet little remarked upon. Because gay men and lesbians violate
gender norms, this may also reflect back on the gendering of organizations,
another important concern.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

 Spirals of Silence 1411
Research Implications
The research propositions that we offer in this article await empirical testing.
However, published accounts and anecdotal evidence regarding the organizational
experiences of gay men and lesbians (e.g., Friskopp and Silverstein, 1995; Meyer-
son, 2001; Mintz and Rothblum, 1997; Taylor and Raeburn, 1995) suggest that
such a research agenda would be worthwhile. This will require the development
of a set of valid and reliable measures of key concepts such as voice and silence,
for which some measures already exist in the literature. We envisage the process
of research as being multi-method and iterative, requiring both inductive and
deductive methods of research, perhaps beginning with focus groups and inter-
views, and extending to more rigorous survey research. The degree to which vari-
ation is individual or systemic is certainly of interest. Further, the opportunity exists
to explore differences across cultures, industries, and organizations, which have
been indicated in the literature.
The spiral of silence has interesting applications to issues of speaking out or
remaining silent in organizations that have not yet been explored in the manage-
ment literature. In particular, it demonstrates the extent to which people’s opin-
ions about issues are not fixed, but change in response to assessments of local and
external opinions. Future empirical research should investigate whether the spiral
of silence theory which has so far been empirically tested on mass media and
public opinion (e.g., Scheufele and Moy, 2000; Shamir, 1995) can indeed be legit-
imately applied to how opinions are formed and changed within organizations.

Limitations
Firstly, the extent to which our model based on sexual orientation may be gener-
alized to other types of diversity may be limited. Each demographic variable
should be treated as a distinct theoretical construct rather than assuming all types
of diversity to have similar effects (Pelled, 1996). The effects of sexual orientation
will not necessarily be the same as those of other characteristics such as sex,
race/ethnicity or less controversial invisible diversities. Further, people are not
limited to possessing a single demographic characteristic. The interaction between
sexual orientation and other factors such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and class may
be complex.
Secondly, we can identify at least two main limitations of the present theoreti-
cal model, including limits to the positive effects of personal identity disclosure,
and the negative effects of involuntary exposure. We argued above that the
voluntary disclosure of sexual orientation enhances organizational voice in a
supportive climate. However, whilst a safe, equitable and welcoming work
environment is essential to realizing the benefits of diversity for decision-making,

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

1412 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
even a supportive workplace may have limits in absorbing challenging and poten-
tially divisive personal identities (Wharton, 1992). Disclosure may be perceived as
disruptive by heterosexual organizational members on the grounds that hetero-
sexuality is not normally disclosed in the workplace. However, the disclosure of
heterosexual identity in the workplace is so routine as to be invisible, through tacit
disclosure, without thought, on a daily basis (Creed and Scully, 2000, p. 398).
Examples of such disclosure include displays of heterosexuality such as wearing
wedding rings, talking about activities with partners, referring to a spouse or
partner by a gendered name, or displaying family pictures. These are taken-for-
granted and rarely perceived as disclosing sexual orientation.
Disclosing relatively non-threatening aspects of GLB identity, for example those
that are relatively similar to heterosexual identity, can provide bridges to other
employees and create a basis for bonding when they show that GLB workers are
similar in non-threatening ways to other employees (e.g., Yeoung and Stombler,
2000). However, promoting political activism (working for change based on iden-
tity politics) rather than sharing personal information may be perceived as nega-
tive rather than neutral or positive (Larkey, 1996).
It may therefore be important to examine exactly what someone is revealing
about their sexual orientation as personal identity. Communications and relations
are likely to be disrupted by threatening or challenging aspects of identity such as
the ones described by Creed and Scully (2000, pp. 391–2) as ‘self-conscious and
intentional performances that announce and enact who they are’ as part of ‘a
larger process whereby beliefs about and attitudes toward an identity are medi-
ated and altered and discriminatory workplace policies and practices are chal-
lenged and, in some cases, changed’.
Individuals who want to assimilate will avoid such activities. Taylor and
Raeburn (1995) found that sociologists who were identified as activists (for
example, researching and publishing on gay issues or advising gay and lesbian stu-
dents) experienced a higher level of negative consequences than those who were
only ‘out’. For example, Bragg (1997, pp. 29–30) noted that gay hospital workers
resisted having their names associated with gay issues in the hospital newsletter
even if they were out to immediate co-workers and supervisors:

I don’t want to be a one issue person. Other staff might believe that I’m only
concerned about gay rights, and I have many other interests beyond homosex-
uality. It might hurt my relationships with other department heads within the
hospital and lessen the degree of respect in which I am held . . . My relation-
ships with conservative or fundamentalist staff members would be damaged.

We have also focused in our model on ‘invisibility’ as something that is voluntar-

ily altered by individuals in order to create an authentic social persona. Whether
people disclose their sexual orientation voluntarily or they are involuntarily ‘outed’
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
 Spirals of Silence 1413
has been shown to affect outcomes: those who are ‘outed’ may face ‘ridicule,
ostracism, or even job loss’ [resulting in] ‘loss of productivity or efficiency relating
from emotional trauma, uncohesive work teams, poor communication, or destruc-
tive conflict among workers’ (Day and Schoenrade, 1997, p. 148). Therefore, the
involuntary disclosure of personal identity may actually diminish organizational
voice instead of supporting it.

Practical Implications
A key implication from the spiral of silence for the current area of discussion is
that people’s tendency to ‘jump on the bandwagon’ of what they perceive as the
dominant or strengthening opinion may lead minority group members to perceive
a stronger climate of support for dominant group opinions that actually exists.
Further, it highlights the extent to which processes of voice and silence are self-
reinforcing virtuous or vicious cycles. Finally, understanding the spiral of silence
may be useful if interventions by key individuals such as managers or corporate
leaders, or at key points such as early on in the processes, can be identified and
executed. This may prevent ‘pluralistic ignorance’ from disrupting group and orga-
nizational processes related to diversity.
Fair treatment of all organizational members not only makes sense in terms of
human dignity, but also from organizational self-interest in terms of recruitment,
retention, productivity, and marketing potential. The ability to attract, keep, and
make the best use of qualified individuals – irrelevant of whether their attributes
‘fit’ with the dominant majority – is a hallmark of a leading company. However,
it is not enough to stick diverse individuals together and hope for the best – com-
panies must create the conditions for and actively manage group processes,
especially communications, to ensure that diversity is productive, rather than
destructive. Utilizing our framework of two spirals of silence may help identify
interventions to promote open and honest expression of organizational voice
within organizations.

NOTES
*The authors would like to thank the three anonymous referees and the editors of this special issue
for making insightful and constructive comments that have greatly contributed to this paper. An
earlier version was presented at the 2002 Academy of Management Conference in Denver, CO.
[1] We are grateful to our anonymous referees for pointing out this higher-level linkage.

REFERENCES

Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell, D. F. (1992a). ‘Bridging the boundary: external activity and perfor-
mance in organizational teams’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 4, 634–65.
Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell, D. F. (1992b). ‘Demography and design: predictors of new product
team performance’. Organization Science, 3, 3, 321–42.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

1414 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
Andersson, L. M. and Pearson, C. M. (1999). ‘Tit for tat? The spiralling effect of incivility in the
workplace’. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–71.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K. and Dutton, J. E. (1998). ‘Out on a limb: the role of
context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues’. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 43, 23–57.
Ashforth, B. E. and Mael, F. (1989). ‘Social identity theory and the organization’. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 14, 20–39.
Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). ‘The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination’. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 48, 726–39.
Banerjee, A. and Somanathan, R. (2001). ‘A simple model of voice’. The Quarterly Journal of Econom-
ics, February, 189–227.
Bell, E. L. E. and Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our Separate Ways: Black and White Women and the Struggle for
Professional Identity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Bennett-Alexander, D. D. (1997). ‘Reflections on being an out Black Lesbian on a Southern campus’.
In Mintz, B. and Rothblum, E. D. (Eds), Lesbians in Academia: Degrees of Freedom. New York:
Routledge.
Berger, J., Wagner, D. and Zelditch, M. (1985). ‘Expectation states theory’. In Berger, J. and Zelditch,
M. (Eds), Status, Rewards, and Influence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1–72.
Blalock, H. M. (1957). ‘Percent nonwhite and discrimination in the South’. American Sociological Review,
21, 584, 588.
Bragg, K. (1997). ‘Being a Gay or Lesbian professional in a psychiatric hospital for adolescents’. In
DeCrescenzo, T. (Ed.), Gay and Lesbian Professionals in the Closet: Who’s in, Who’s Out, and Why.
Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 25–38.
Brewer, M. B. (1995). ‘Managing diversity: the role of social identities’. In: Jackson, S. E. and
Ruderman, M. N. (Eds), Diversity in Work Teams. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association, 42–61.
Brewer, M. B. and Miller, N. (1984). ‘Beyond the contact hypothesis: theoretical perspectives on
desegregation’. In: Miller, N. and Brewer, M. B. (Eds), Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Deseg-
regation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 281–302.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). ‘Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: the influence of demographic dis-
similarity on organizational citizenship behaviour’. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 3, 273–8.
Chrobot-Mason, D. and Button, S. B. (1999). ‘Sexual Identity Management Strategies: An Explo-
ration of Antecedents and Consequences’. Academy of Management Annual Conference,
Chicago, IL.
Cianni, M. and Romberger, B. (1995). ‘Interactions with senior managers: perceived differences by
race/ethnicity and by gender’. Sex Roles, 32, 353–73.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. and MacLean, T. (2002). ‘Out of Sight But Not Out of Mind: How People
Manage Invisible Social Identities in the Workplace’. Academy of Management, August 2002,
Denver, CO.
Connelly, D. (1994). ‘Social identity as a barrier to understanding: the role of gender and race’.
Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 74–8.
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Creed, W. E. D. and Scully, M. A. (2000). ‘Songs of ourselves: employees’ deployment of social iden-
tity in workplace encounters’. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 391–412.
Croteau, J. M. and Von Destinon, M. (1994). ‘A national survey of job search experiences of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual student affairs professionals’. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 1,
40–5.
Crow, S. M., Fok, L. Y. and Hartman, S. J. (1995). ‘Priorities of hiring discrimination: who is at great-
est risk – women, blacks, or homosexuals?’. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 443–5.
Cunningham, J. (2002). ‘Uniform support’. The Guardian, 2 January, S2–S3.
Day, N. E. and Schoenrade, P. (1997). ‘Staying in the closet versus coming out: relationships between
communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes’. Personnel Psychology, 50, 147–63.
Deaux, K. and Major, B. (1987). ‘Putting gender into context: an interactive model of gender-related
behaviour’. Psychological Review, 94, 369–89.
Dickemann, M. (1997). ‘Coming out and coming in: a kind of homecoming’. In Mintz, B. and
Rothblum, E. D. (Eds), Lesbians in Academia: Degrees of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

 Spirals of Silence 1415
Dunn, C. P. (1994). ‘Taking Stock . . . and Breaking the Silence’. International Association for Busi-
ness and Society Annual Meeting.
Dutton, J. E. and Ashford, S. J. (1993). ‘Selling issues to top management’. Academy of Management
Review, 18, 397–428.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O-Neill, R. M. and Lawrence, K. A. (2001). ‘Moves that matter: issue
selling and organizational change’. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716–36.
Eliason, M. J. (1997). ‘Out in the heartland: Lesbian, academics, and Iowa’. In Mintz, B. and
Rothblum, E. D. (Eds), Lesbians in Academia: Degrees of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Ellis, A. L. and Riggle, E. D. B. (1996). ‘The relation of job satisfaction and degree of openness
about one’s sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men’. Journal of Homosexuality, 30,
75–85.
Elsass, P. M. and Graves, L. M. (1997). ‘Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: the expe-
riences of women and people of colour’. Academy of Management Review, 22, 4, 946–73.
Ely, R. J. (1994). ‘The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships
among professional women’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203–38.
Ely, R. J. (1995). ‘The power in demography: women’s social constructions of gender identity at
work’. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 3, 589–634.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Floyd, S. W. and Wooldridge, W. (1994). ‘Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management’s
strategic role’. Academy of Management Executive, 8, 4, 47–57.
Florida, R. and Gates, G. (2001). ‘Technology and tolerance: the importance of diversity to high-
technology growth’. The Brookings Institution Survey Series, June.
Friskopp, A. and Silverstein, S. (1995). Straight Jobs, Gay Lives: Gay and Lesbian Professionals. The Harvard
Business School, and The American Workplace. New York: Scribner.
Frohman, A. L. (1997). ‘Igniting organizational change from below: the power of personal initia-
tive’. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 3, 39–53.
Gaertner, S. L. and Dovidio, J. F. (1986). ‘The aversive form of racism’. In Dovidio, J. F.
and Gaertner, S. L. (Eds), Prejudice, Discrimination & Racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press,
61–89.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Simon &
Schuster.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Gonzenbach, W. J., King, C. and Jablonski, P. (1999). ‘Homosexuals and the military: an analysis of
the spiral of silence’. The Howard Journal of Communications, 10, 281–96.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, M. (1989). ‘Private experiences in the public domain: lesbians in organizations’. In Hearn, J.,
Sheppard, D. L., Tancred-Sheriff, P. and Burrell, G. (Eds), The Sexuality of Organization. London:
Sage.
Hearn, J., Sheppard, D. L., Tancred-Sherif, P. and Burrell, G. (1989). The Sexuality of Organization.
Sage.
Hewstone, M., Jaspars, J. M. F. and Lalljee, M. (1982). ‘Social representations, social attribution and
social identity: the intergroup images of “public” and “comprehensive” schoolboys’. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 241–69.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hoffman, L. R. and Maier, N. R. F. (1961). ‘Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by
members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
62, 401–7.
Hood, J. N. and Koberg, C. S. (1994). ‘Patterns of differential assimilation and acculturation for
women in business organizations’. Human Relations, 47, 159–81.
Human Rights Campaign (2001). The State of the Workplace for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered
Americans. Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign Foundation.
Humphrey, J. C. (1999). ‘Organizing sexualities, organized inequalities: lesbians and gay men in
public service occupations’. Gender, Work and Organization, 6, 3, 134–51.
Ibarra, H. (1992). ‘Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and
access in an advertising firm’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422–47.
Ibarra, H. (1993). ‘Personal networks of women and minorities in management: a conceptual frame-
work’. Academy of Management Review, 18, 56–87.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

1416 F. Bowen and K. Blackmon
Jackson, S. E. (1991). ‘Team composition in organizational settings: issues in management an increas-
ingly diverse workforce’. In Worchel, S., Wood, W. and Simpson, J. (Eds), Group Process and
Productivity, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 138–73.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). ‘Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to
token women’. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–90.
Katz, F. and Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Konrad, A. M., Winter, S. and Gutek, B. A. (1992). ‘Diversity in work group composition: implica-
tions for majority and minority members’. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 10, 115–40.
Larkey, L. K. (1996). ‘Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse work-
groups’. Academy of Management Review, 21, 2, 463–91.
Lau, D. C. and Murnighan, J. K. (1998). ‘Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional
dynamics of organizational groups’. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–40.
Lawler, E. E. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High-Involvement Organization. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
McLeod, P. L. and Lobel, S. A. (1992). ‘The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small
groups’. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 227–31.
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M. and Brass, D. J. (1998). ‘At the margins: a distinctiveness approach to the
social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups’. Academy of Management Journal,
41, 4, 441–52.
Meyerson, D. E. (2001). Tempered Radicals: How People Use Difference to Inspire Change at Work. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Miceli, M. P. and Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the Whistle. New York: Lexington Books.
Milliken, F. J. and Martins, L. L. (1996). ‘Searching for common threads: understanding the multi-
ple effects of diversity in organizational groups’. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–33.
Mintz, B. and Rothblum, E. D. (Eds) (1997). Lesbians in Academia: Degrees of Freedom. New York:
Routledge.
Morrison, E. W. and Milliken, F. J. (2000). ‘Organizational silence: a barrier to change and devel-
opment in a pluralistic world’. Academy of Management Review, 25, 4, 706–25.
Nemeth, C. J. (1997). ‘Managing innovation: when less is more’. California Management Review, 40, 1,
59–74.
Nkomo, S. M. (1992). ‘The emperor has no clothes: rewriting “race in organizations” ’. Academy of
Management Review, 17, 3, 487–513.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). ‘The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion’. Journal of Communi-
cation, 24, 43–51.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (Ed.) (1985). The Spiral of Silence: A Response. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1991). ‘The theory of public opinion: the concept of the spiral of silence’. In
Anderson, J. A. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 256–87.
O’Farrell, B. and Harlan, S. L. (1982). ‘Craftworkers and clerks: the effect of male co-worker
hostility on women’s satisfaction with nontraditionalnon-traditional jobs’. Social Problems, 29,
252–64.
O’Reilly, C. A. III, Caldwell, D. F. and Barnett, W. P. (1989). ‘Work group demography, social
integration, and turnover’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). ‘Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening
process theory’. Organization Science, 7, 6, 615–31.
Pelled, L. H., Ledford, G. E. and Mohrman, S. A. (1999). ‘Demographic dissimilarity and workplace
inclusion’. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 7, 1013–31.
Pettigrew, T. F. and Martin, J. (1987). ‘Shaping the organizational context for Black American inclu-
sion’. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41–78.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage Through People. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1982). ‘Status in groups: the importance of motivation’. American Sociological Review,
47, 76–88.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). ‘The social construction of status-value: gender and other nominal charac-
teristics’. Social Forces, 70, 367–86.
Ridgeway, C. L. and Balkwell, J. W. (1997). ‘Group processes and the diffusion of status beliefs’. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 60, 1, 14–31.
Ridgeway, C. L. and Erickson, K. G. (2000). ‘Creating and spreading status beliefs’. American Journal
of Sociology, 106, 3, 579–615.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

 Spirals of Silence 1417
Scheufele, D. A. and Moy, P. (2000). ‘Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: a conceptual review
and empirical outlook’. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 3–28.
Schedfele, D. A., Shanahan, J. and Lee, E. (2001). ‘Real talk: manipulating the dependent variable
in spiral of silence research’. Communication Research, 28, 304–24.
Shamir, J. (1995). ‘Information cues and indicators of the climate of opinion: the spiral of silence
theory in the Intifada’. Communication Research, 22, 1, 24–53.
Shapiro, J. P., Cook, G. G. and Krackov, A. (1993). ‘Straight talk about gays’. U. S. News & World
Report, 5 April, 42–8.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. and Near, J. P. (1983). ‘Organizational citizenship behaviour: its nature
and antecedents’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 4, 653–63.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). ‘Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement
and validation’. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–65.
Stephan, W. G. (1978). ‘School desegregation: an evaluation of predictors made in “Brown v Board
of Education” ’. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 217–38.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Identity and Inter-group Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1986). ‘The social identity theory of inter-group behaviour’. In Worchel,
S. and Austin, W. G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 7–24.
Taylor, V. and Raeburn, N. C. (1995). ‘Identity politics as high-risk activism: career consequences
for lesbian, gay, and bisexual sociologists’. Social Problems, 42, 2, 252–73.
Thomas, D. A. and Alderfer, C. P. (1989). ‘The influence of race on career dynamics: theory and
research on minority career experiences’. In Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T. and Lawrence, B. S.
(Eds), Handbook of Career Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 133–58.
Tsui, A. S. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). ‘Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance of rela-
tional demography in superior-subordinate dyads’. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402–23.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D. and O’Reilly, C. A. III. (1992). ‘Being different: relational demography and
organizational attachment’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–79.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). ‘Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction
process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups’. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 36, 590–602.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society. Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich. Translated by E. Frischoff
et al. New York: Bedminster Press.
Webster, M. and Foschi, M. (1988). Status Generalisation: New Theory and Research. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Webster, M. and Hysom, S. J. (1998). ‘Creating status characteristics’. American Sociological Review, 63,
351–78.
Welch, J. (1996). ‘The invisible minority’. People Management, 2, 19, 24–31.
Wharton, A. S. (1992). ‘The social construction of gender and race in organizations: a social iden-
tify and group mobilization perspective’. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 10, 55–84.
Wiersema, M. F. and Bantel, K. A. (1992). ‘Top management team demography and corporate
strategic change’. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91–121.
Wiethoff, C. (2000). ‘Does Disclosure of Same-sex Orientation Affect Customers’ Perceptions of
Service Quality?’. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Toronto,
WO.
Williams, M. (2001). ‘In whom we trust: group membership as an affective context for trust devel-
opment’. Academy of Management Review, 26, 3, 377–96.
Yeoung, K.-T. and Stombler, M. (2000). ‘Gay and Greek: the identity paradox of gay fraternities’.
Social Problems, 47, 1, 134–52.
Zhou, J. and George, J. M. (2001). ‘When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the
expression of voice’. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–96.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003